Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov)[1]

Written:Written August-September 1916Published:First published in the magazineProletarskaya RevolutsiaNo. 7 (90), 1929.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 23,

      pages22-27.Translated:M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and OthersTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2002

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Likeevery crisis in the life of individuals or in the
history of nations, war oppresses and breaks some, steels and enlightens
others.

Thetruth of that is making itself felt in Social-Democratic thinking
on the war and in connection with the war. It is one thing to give serious
thought to the causes and significance of an imperialist war that grows out
of highly developed capitalism, Social-Democratic tactics in connection
with such a war, the causes of the crisis within the Social-Democratic
movement, and so on. But it is quite another to allow the war tooppressyour thinking, to stop thinking and analysingunder
the weightof the terrible impressions and tormenting consequences or
features of the war.

Onesuch form ofoppressionorrepressionof human
thinking caused by the war is the contemptuous attitude of imperialist
Economism towardsdemocracy. P. Kievsky does not notice that
running like a red thread through all his arguments is this war-inspired
oppression, this fear, this refusal to analyse. What point is there in
discussing defence of the fatherland when we are in the midst of such a
terrible holocaust? What point is there in discussing nations’ rights when
outright strangulation is everywhere the rule?  Self-determination and
“independence” of nations—but look what they have done to
“independent” Greece! What is the use of talking and thinking of
“rights”, when rights are every where being trampled upon in the
interests of the militarists! What sense is there in talking and thinking
of a republic, when there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between
the most democratic republics and the most reactionary monarchies, when the
war has obliterated every trace of difference!

Kievskyis very angry when told that he has given way to fear, to the
extent of rejecting democracy in general. He is angry and objects: I am not
against democracy, only againstonedemocratic demand, which I
consider “bad”. But though Kievsky is offended, and though he
“assures” us (and himself as well, perhaps) that he is not at
all “against” democracy, hisarguments—or, more correctly, the
endlesserrorsin his arguments—prove the very opposite.

Defenceof the fatherland is a lie in an imperialist war, but not in a
democratic and revolutionary war. All talk of “rights” seems absurd
during a war, becauseeverywar replaces rights by direct and
outright violence. But that should not lead us to forget that history has
known in the past (and very likely will know, must know, in the future)
wars (democratic and revolutionary wars) which, while replacing every kind
of “right”, every kind of democracy, by violence during the war,
nevertheless, in their social content and implications,servedthe
cause of democracy, andconsequentlysocialism. The example of
Greece, it would seem, “refutes” all national self-determination. But if
you stop to think, analyse and weigh matters, and do not allow yourself to
be deafened by the sound of words or frightened and oppressed by the
nightmarish impressions of the war, then this example is no more serious or
convincing than ridiculing the republican system because the “democratic”
republics, the most democratic—not only France, but also the United
States, Portugal and Switzerland—have already introduced or are
introducing, in the course of this war, exactly the same kind of militarist
arbitrariness that exists in Russia.

Thatimperialist war obliterates the difference between republic and
monarchy is a fact. But to therefore reject the republic, or even be
contemptuous towards it, is to allow oneself to be frightened by the war,
and one’s thinking to beoppressedby its horrors. That is the
mentality of many supporters of the “disarmament” slogan (Roland-Hoist,
the younger element in Switzerland, the Scandinavian
“Lefts”[2]and others). What, they imply, is the use of discussing
revolutionary utilisation of the army or a militia when there is no
difference in this war between a republican militia and a monarchist
standing army, and when militarism isevery wheredoing its
horrible work?

Thatis allonetrend of thought,one and the sametheoretical and practical political error Kievsky unwittingly makes at
every step. Hethinkshe is arguing only against
self-determination, hewantsto argue only against
self-determination, [sic] but the result—against his will and conscience,
and that is the curious thing!—is that he has adducednot a
singleargument which could not be just as well applied to democracy
in general!

Thereal source of all his curious logical errors and confusion—and
this applies to not only self-determination, but also to defence of the
fatherland, divorce, “rights” in general—lies in theoppressionof his thinking by the war, which makes him completely
distort the Marxist position on democracy.

Imperialismis highly developed capitalism; imperialism is progressive;
imperialismisthe negation of democracy—“hence”, democracy is
“unattainable” under capitalism. Imperialist war is a flagrant violation
of all democracy, whether in backward monarchies or progressive
republics—“hence”, there is no point in talking of “rights” (i. e.,
democracy!). The “only” thing that can be “opposed” to imperialist war
is socialism; socialism alone is “the way out”; “hence”, to advance
democratic slogans in our minimum programme, i.e., under capitalism, is a
deception or an illusion, befuddlement or postponement, etc., of the slogan
of socialist revolution.

ThoughKievsky does not realise it, that is the real source of all his
mishaps. That is hisbasiclogical error which, precisely because
it is basic and is not realised by the author, “explodes” at
every step like a punctured bicycle tire. It “bursts out” now on the
question of defending the fatherland, now on the question of divorce, now
in the phrase about “rights”, in this remarkable phrase (remarkable for
its utter contempt for “rights” and its utter failure to understand the
issue): we shall discussnotrights,butthe destruction
of age-old slavery!

Tosay that is to show a lack of understanding of the relationship
between capitalism and democracy, between socialism and democracy.

Capitalismin general, and imperialism in particular, turn democracy
into an illusion—though at the same time capitalismengenders democratic aspirations in the masses, creates democratic
institutions, aggravates the antagonism between imperialism’s denial of
democracy and the mass striving for democracy. Capitalism and imperialism
can be over thrown only by economic revolution. They cannot be over thrown
by democratic transformations, even the most “ideal”. But a proletariat
not schooled in the struggle for democracy is incapable of performing an
economic revolution. Capitalism cannot be vanquished withouttaking
over the banks, without repealingprivate ownershipof the
means of production. These revolutionary measures, however, cannot be
implemented without organising the entire people for democratic
administration of the means of production captured from the bourgeoisie,
without enlisting the entire mass of the working people, the proletarians,
semi-proletarians and small peasants, for the democratic organisation of
their ranks, their forces, their participation in state
affairs. Imperialist war may be said to be a triple negation of democracy
(a. every war replaces “rights” by violence;b.
imperialism as such is the negation of democracy;c. imperialist
war fully equates the republic with the monarchy), but the awakening and
growth of socialist revolt against imperialism areindissolublylinked with the growth of democratic resistance and unrest. Socialism leads
to the withering away ofeverystate, consequently also of every
democracy, but socialism can be implemented onlythroughthe
dictator ship of the proletariat, which combines violence against the
bourgeoisie, i.e., the minority of the population, withfulldevelopment of democracy, i.e., the genuinely equal and genuinely universal
participation of theentiremass of the population in allstateaffairs and in all the complex problems of abolishing
capitalism.

Itis in these “contradictions” that Kievsky, having for gotten the
Marxist teaching on democracy, got himself con fused. Figuratively
speaking, the war has so oppressed his thinking that he uses the
agitational slogan “break out of imperialism” to replace all thinking,
just as the cry “get out of the colonies” is used to replace analysis of
what, properly speaking, is themeaning—economically and
politically—of the civilised nations “getting out of the colonies”.

TheMarxist solution of the problem of democracy is for the proletariat
toutilise alldemocratic institutions and aspirations in its
class struggle against the bourgeoisie in order to prepare for its
overthrow and assure its own victory. Such utilisation is no easy task. To
the Economists, Tolstoyans, etc., it often seems an unpardonable concession
to “bourgeois” and opportunist views, just as to Kievsky defence of
national self-determination “in the epoch of finance capital” seems an
unpardonable concession to bourgeois views. Marxism teaches us that to
“fight opportunism” by renouncing utilisation of the democratic
institutions created and distorted by the bourgeoisie of thegiven, capitalist, society is tocompletely surrenderto
opportunism!

Theslogan ofcivil warfor socialism indicates the quickest
way out of the imperialist war andlinksour struggle against the
war with our struggle against opportunism. It is the only slogan that
correctly takes into account both war-time peculiarities—the war is
dragging out and threatening to grow into a whole “epoch” of war—and
the general character of our activities as distinct from opportunism with
its pacifism, legalism and adaptation to one’s “own” bourgeoisie. In
addition, civil war against the bourgeoisie is ademocraticallyorganised anddemocraticallyconducted war of the propertyless
mass against the propertied minority. But civil war, like every other, must
inevitably replace rights by violence. However, violence in the name of the
interests and rights of the majority is of a different nature: it tramples
on the “rights” of the exploiters, the bourgeoisie, it isunachievablewithout democratic organisation of the army and the
“rear”. Civil war forcibly expropriates, immediately and first of all,
the banks, factories, railways, the big estates, etc. Butin orderto expropriate all this, we shall have to introduce election of all
officials and officers by the people,completely mergethe army
conducting the war against the bourgeoisie with the mass of the population,
completely democratise administration of the food supply, the production
and distribution of food, etc. The object of civil war is to seize the
banks, factories, etc., destroy all possibility of resistance by the
bourgeoisie, destroyitsarmed forces. But that aim cannot be
achievedeitherin its purely military,oreconomic,orpolitical aspects, unless we, during thewar, simultaneously introduce and extend democracy amongourarmed
forces and inour“rear”. We tell the masses now (and they
instinctively feel that we are right): “They are deceiving you in making
you fight for imperialist capitalism in a war disguised by the great
slogans of democracy. You must, you shall wage agenuinelydemocratic waragainstthe bourgeoisie for the achievement of
genuine democracy and socialism.” The present war unites and “merges”
nations into coalitions by means of violence and financial dependence. In
our civil war against the bourgeoisie,weshall unite and merge
the nationsnotby the force of the ruble,notby the
force of the truncheon, not by violence, but byvoluntaryagreement and solidarity of the working people against the exploiters. For
the bourgeoisie the proclamation of equal rights for all nations has become
a deception. For us it will be the truth that will facilitate and
accelerate the winning over of all nations. Without effectively organiseddemocraticrelations between nations—and, consequently, without
freedom of secession—civil war of the workers and working people
generally of all nations against the bourgeoisie isimpossible.

Throughutilisation of bourgeois democracy to socialist and
consistently democratic organisation of the proletariat against the
bourgeoisie and against opportunism. There is no other path. There isnoother way out. Marxism, just as life itself, knows no other way
out. We must direct free secession and free merging of nations along that
path, not fight shy of them, not fear that this will “defile” the
“purity” of our economic aims.

[1]Thisarticle was written in reply to one by Y. L. Pyatakov (P. Kievsky),
“The Proletariat and the‘Right of Nations to
Self-Determination, in the Era of Finance Capital” (August 1916). The
manuscript bears Lenin’s marginal note: “Kievsky’s article on
self-determination and Lenin’s reply.” Both articles were meant for No. 3
ofSbornik Sotsial-Demokrata. Somewhat later, Lenin wrote another
article in reply to Kievsky, “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist
Economism” (see pp. 28–76 of this volume). Due to financial difficulties,
No. 3 was not published and the articles did not appear in print. Lenin’s
article, however, was widely known in manuscript to Bolsheviks living
abroad and to a number of Left Social-Democrats.

[2]Leninis alluding to the article “Miliz oder Abrüstung?" (“Militia or
Disarmament?”) by Henriette Roland-Holst, a Left-wing Dutch
Social-Democrat, in the Swiss Social-Democratic journalNeues
Leben(New Life) No. 10–11 (October-November) and No. 12 (December)
1915.

Inreferring to the Swiss young Social-Democrats, Lenin had in view
chiefly the magazineJugend-Internationale(The Youth Inter
national), organ of the International League of Socialist Youth
Organisations,published in Switzerland; it spoke for the Left forces in the Swiss
Social-Democratic Party. Issue No. 3 of the magazine carried an editorial
“Volksheer oder Entwaffnung?”  (“A People’s Army or Disarmament?”).

Theattitude of the Scandinavian (Swedish and Norwegian) Left
Social-Democrats on this issue was set out in articles by Karl Kilbom,
“Swedish Social-Democracy and the World War”, and Arvid Hansen, “Certain
Aspects of the Present-Day Norwegian Labour Movement”, both of which
appeared inSbornik Sotsial-DemokrataNo. 2.

Lenindiscusses the “disarmament” slogan in “The Military Programme
of the Proletarian Revolution” and “The ‘Disarmament’ Slogan” (see
pp. 77–87, 94–104 of this volume).